As to your whole "I need evidence of such a game" I've provided ample evidence of games that could still be fun without vertical progression. But your argument is essentially someone in 1900 saying "Provide me with evidence of a flying machine, because if it hasn't been done already it can't be done." That argument is so senseless it's not worth addressing. I don't need to provide proof it's been done to prove the concept. If it had been done I wouldn't be arguing that it needs to be done.
"Well, take a look at the original Guild Wars. A few days of hard play and you have your character at max level with max gear effectiveness. But there is so much game left after that point. You go around collecting new skills which are not inherently more powerful than the old ones, and cooler looking gear. Players still were motivated to go out and play past max level, and GW ended up being a wildly popular game despite the complete lack of an open world, any sandbox features whatsoever, or crafting. Features that could have made it even more compelling as a long term title."
Neither the words vertical nor horizontal progression were used in the original post because those are terms that Vermillion introduced me to through his useage of them in this topic. However the quote above is a direct reference to horizontal progression in a game in which I made it clear I had no issue with it.
The quote you made and attributed to me is also purely falsified. The original post was all about what would or wouldn't make a compelling MMO. I actually titled the topic MMO and not MMORPG. Not that I agree you need verticle progression to make an RPG but because the primary focus of this argument was about the need for "MMOs with little to no leveling/twinking." Call them an MMORPG, an MMO, or a ham sandwich. I simply want a massively multiplayer experience without massive power gaps.
I trust you aren't ignorant enough to believe that massively multiplayer and little to no power gap are mutually exclusive terms so I suppose the big question that then begs to me is why even attack it on the grounds that it can't be an RPG without verticle progression? Even if you are right (Which you aren't) how does the kind of game I'm describing not fitting your short-sighted definition of an RPG negate the need for it or make it less fun?
Eh, Vermillion's response was to my response to Cameltosis, so that's the only original post he could be referring to, since ours has been a pretty distinct sub-thread to the larger conversation.
The discussion hasn't been that MMO and vertical progression are inseparable but that RPG and vertical progression are (judging by the complete lack of evidence of any RPG that has zero vertical progression, and the overwhelming abundance of RPGs that do have vertical progression).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So again, why are we even discussing this? While the argument that if all RPGs contain vertical progression you can't have an RPG without it is both a non-sequitur and ad populum fallacy (Look them up if you don't know them.) What does it matter if we are talking about MMOs or MMORPGs?
How does the classification a game fits under have anything to do with whether or not it's a viable idea worth pursuing or not? I don't care if it's an MMO, MMORPG, or David Hasslehoff. What you call it has no bearing on whether it's a good concept or not.
Isnt Second Life an MMORPG without vertical progression
I'm not super familiar with it. Is it? My impression of it was a sandbox MMO designed more to work as a social tool (Almost like a glorified chatroom) than as a game in the traditional sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't an MMORPG without vertical progression. Not my cup of tea but it is another proof of concept if it fits the bill.
So again, why are we even discussing this? While the argument that if all RPGs contain vertical progression you can't have an RPG without it is both a non-sequitur and ad populum fallacy (Look them up if you don't know them.) What does it matter if we are talking about MMOs or MMORPGs?
How does the classification a game fits under have anything to do with whether or not it's a viable idea worth pursuing or not? I don't care if it's an MMO, MMORPG, or David Hasslehoff. What you call it has no bearing on whether it's a good concept or not.
It was a simple correction to a false claim that was made, and given that there's no evidence supporting his claim then certainly it shouldn't have splintered into such a lengthy side-conversation. Unfortunately some here enjoy arguing with me more than they enjoy being correct, and so the result of that is several posts where people tried in vain to contradict my point.
So we're discussing this because something wrong was said and corrected and people refused to accept the truth of the matter. I corrected my own post when Venge called me out for wording things poorly; the person making this false claim could've simply done the same.
Obviously games could exist with no vertical progression, and being an MMO doesn't affect that at all, and in fact for PVP games it's ideal to have no vertical progression so the playing field is equal and skill-focused, whereas in PVE there's no significant reason not to have it (because the advantage to having it outweighs the minor (and individually-solvable) disadvantage to having it). If you don't have it, then you're definitely not going to create a game that's considered an RPG but you're right that nobody should necessarily be concerned about that.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Second Life is a sandbox sim, it's simply known as a virtual world and has no particular genre beyond that.
hmm Its an MMO and it has one of the best and most dedicated RPG communities in the entire genre , entire medieval villages , or modern city are roleplayed and enforced .. etc .. Dungeons are run mobs fought ....... so how does it not catergorize as a RPG or MMORPG These people are truly roleplaying in a MMORPG , the confusion for many in this genre is they dont know or distinguish the difference between , Role Playing or playing a Role .. 2 very different things ...
hmm Its an MMO and it has one of the best and most dedicated RPG communities in the entire genre , entire medieval villages , or modern city are roleplayed and enforced .. etc .. Dungeons are run mobs fought ....... so how does it not catergorize as a RPG or MMORPG These people are truly roleplaying in a MMORPG , the confusion for many in this genre is they dont know or distinguish the difference between , Role Playing or playing a Role .. 2 very different things ...
Because role-playing videogames are not tabletop role-playing games.
They're two different, distinct genres with different core design pillars.
Also the game itself determines the genre, not any mods. Only a fool would call Starcraft 2 a puzzle game just because there's a puzzle custom map. Instead, SC2 is an RTS (and the puzzle map is its own game called Starjeweled, and Starjeweled is a puzzle game.) Similarly, Second Life is just a sandbox. Second Life itself has no inherent gameplay (afaik) and is merely a platform where games and non-games can exist. Those games can be their own genres, but those games aren't Second Life.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So again, why are we even discussing this? While the argument that if all RPGs contain vertical progression you can't have an RPG without it is both a non-sequitur and ad populum fallacy (Look them up if you don't know them.) What does it matter if we are talking about MMOs or MMORPGs?
How does the classification a game fits under have anything to do with whether or not it's a viable idea worth pursuing or not? I don't care if it's an MMO, MMORPG, or David Hasslehoff. What you call it has no bearing on whether it's a good concept or not.
It was a simple correction to a false claim that was made, and given that there's no evidence supporting his claim then certainly it shouldn't have splintered into such a lengthy side-conversation. Unfortunately some here enjoy arguing with me more than they enjoy being correct, and so the result of that is several posts where people tried in vain to contradict my point.
So we're discussing this because something wrong was said and corrected and people refused to accept the truth of the matter. I corrected my own post when Venge called me out for wording things poorly; the person making this false claim could've simply done the same.
Obviously games could exist with no vertical progression, and being an MMO doesn't affect that at all, and in fact for PVP games it's ideal to have no vertical progression so the playing field is equal and skill-focused, whereas in PVE there's no significant reason not to have it (because the advantage to having it outweighs the minor (and individually-solvable) disadvantage to having it). If you don't have it, then you're definitely not going to create a game that's considered an RPG but you're right that nobody should necessarily be concerned about that.
To translate;
It's all fundamentally that he believes that RPGs can't exist without progression taking a distinct vertical format. When presented with a statement that suggests one can make an RPG predicated on horizontal progression, it's basically counter to this belief of his and therefore it is "wrong", in spite of it being an entirely subjective opinion on his part.
Nothing "wrong" was actually said as such, but because he disagrees with it he has hence deemed it wrong and nothing can change that in spite of the evidence he demands to his strange quandary existing in the wiki pages he linked.
So in short, his ego can't accept that his beliefs are not the universal truth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Per the request of a few people on these boards I've started writing down some of the ideas I have for a game. These ideas are mainly idle fancy for the fun of it and I have no resources to actually build an MMO but I figured they would be pretty relevant to this debate as this game would feature very little vertical progression but would undeniably be an RPG:
You have kind of unified the whole genre into one game with those ideas . Sandbox, themepark, sandpark and themebox, singleplayer, multiplayer and massive multiplayer, PVP, PVE, MOBA, I can see them all in your game. I like it.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
"Well, take a look at the original Guild Wars. A few days of hard play and you have your character at max level with max gear effectiveness. But there is so much game left after that point. You go around collecting new skills which are not inherently more powerful than the old ones, and cooler looking gear. Players still were motivated to go out and play past max level, and GW ended up being a wildly popular game despite the complete lack of an open world, any sandbox features whatsoever, or crafting. Features that could have made it even more compelling as a long term title."
Neither the words vertical nor horizontal progression were used in the original post because those are terms that Vermillion introduced me to through his useage of them in this topic. However the quote above is a direct reference to horizontal progression in a game in which I made it clear I had no issue with it.
The quote you made and attributed to me is also purely falsified. The original post was all about what would or wouldn't make a compelling MMO. I actually titled the topic MMO and not MMORPG. Not that I agree you need verticle progression to make an RPG but because the primary focus of this argument was about the need for "MMOs with little to no leveling/twinking." Call them an MMORPG, an MMO, or a ham sandwich. I simply want a massively multiplayer experience without massive power gaps.
I trust you aren't ignorant enough to believe that massively multiplayer and little to no power gap are mutually exclusive terms so I suppose the big question that then begs to me is why even attack it on the grounds that it can't be an RPG without verticle progression? Even if you are right (Which you aren't) how does the kind of game I'm describing not fitting your short-sighted definition of an RPG negate the need for it or make it less fun?
Eh, Vermillion's response was to my response to Cameltosis, so that's the only original post he could be referring to, since ours has been a pretty distinct sub-thread to the larger conversation.
The discussion hasn't been that MMO and vertical progression are inseparable but that RPG and vertical progression are (judging by the complete lack of evidence of any RPG that has zero vertical progression, and the overwhelming abundance of RPGs that do have vertical progression).
OK, so I've been searching around for RPGs with literally no vertical progression, but can't find any. But, that doesn't invalidate my statement and I still stand by it:
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
You may have started including vertical progression as a pillar of computer game RPGs, but that doesn't make you right. Its a common feature, but then its a common feature of many genres. RPGs are about role-playing through a story / gameworld. Customisation is a big part of it, but then many games are considered RPGs even when you can't customise your role.
Regardless, horizontal progression is still progression - your character starts off in one place and progresses to a new place in terms of power / specialisation - so a game can easily still be an RPG with horizontal progression. My inability to find an example of an RPG without any vertical progression is not evidence that such an RPG is impossible and to argue otherwise is arguing from a point of ignorance (a common false dichotomy, usually employed by people of faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
But, even though I cannot find any examples of RPGs with any vertical progression, pretty much all RPGs I've ever played have a combination of both horizontal and vertical progression. So, the mechanic itself has already proven itself a stable of RPGs and proven itself popular. Perhaps I should challenge you to find an RPG with no horizontal progression?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Per the request of a few people on these boards I've started writing down some of the ideas I have for a game. These ideas are mainly idle fancy for the fun of it and I have no resources to actually build an MMO but I figured they would be pretty relevant to this debate as this game would feature very little vertical progression but would undeniably be an RPG:
OK, so I've been searching around for RPGs with literally no vertical progression, but can't find any. But, that doesn't invalidate my statement and I still stand by it:
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
You may have started including vertical progression as a pillar of computer game RPGs, but that doesn't make you right. Its a common feature, but then its a common feature of many genres. RPGs are about role-playing through a story / gameworld. Customisation is a big part of it, but then many games are considered RPGs even when you can't customise your role.
Regardless, horizontal progression is still progression - your character starts off in one place and progresses to a new place in terms of power / specialisation - so a game can easily still be an RPG with horizontal progression. My inability to find an example of an RPG without any vertical progression is not evidence that such an RPG is impossible and to argue otherwise is arguing from a point of ignorance (a common false dichotomy, usually employed by people of faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
But, even though I cannot find any examples of RPGs with any vertical progression, pretty much all RPGs I've ever played have a combination of both horizontal and vertical progression. So, the mechanic itself has already proven itself a stable of RPGs and proven itself popular. Perhaps I should challenge you to find an RPG with no horizontal progression?
It's not just a common feature. You searched around and literally came up with zero RPGs without vertical progression. In spite of a staggeringly large list of RPGs, not one has been shown to lack vertical progression.
A lack of evidence makes a claim baseless. That doesn't mean the claim is false, but it means it's not based on any evidence so it's quite likely to be false unless there's is a strong logical reason it might be true or strong related evidence indicating it might be true. Neither of those exist for your claim.
Why challenge me to find an RPG with no horizontal progression? I haven't made any false claims regarding that. Note how my lack of baseless claims means I have nothing to prove to you? You could learn something from that...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So, my "evidence" is not based on existing games because, as you've pointed out, there doesn't exist an RPG with literally no vertical progression. There are tons with minimal vertical progression, tons with a mix of both, but none with absolutely none.
However, I look to other genres.
Shooters Single player shooters used to all have vertical progression - work through the levels, getting bigger/better guns and armour etc. When shooters went multiplayer, this mechanic didn't work well, so they switched to horizontal progression. This worked exceedingly well and is now considered absolutely vital for all online shooters.
Action RPGs Again, single player action RPGs are all vertical progression. Works fine. When they went multiplayer, it all fell over - players got smashed in pvp or couldn't play together in pve. Again, they went horizontal (mobas) and again, proved the saviour of the genre and is now considered vital for all mobas.
Sports Again, most single player sports games allow you to level up / get new players / cars etc and vertically progress. When it comes to multiplayer, such features failed the genre resulting in low uptake / retention (getting smashed by superior teams / cars sucked) which is why most moved either to horizontal progression or removed all progression online.
In pretty much every single genre out there, vertical progression has proven to be the wrong choice when adapting the genre for multiplayer. Either switching to horizontal progression or removing progression altogether has proven to be the answer.
Only RPGs have failed to make the switch and the results are telling. The parts of MMORPGs which are primarily solo have worked fine with vertical progression, but as soon as you reach the multiplayer parts you run into trouble. The power gaps massively unbalance PvP, making it an extremely niche portion of MMOs. The power gaps also make it really hard to find groups for PvE, resulting in most games becoming 99% solo during leveling. Even at endgame, the power gaps continue to make finding a group hard as they segregate the community, again resulting in group PvE being a niche portion of MMOs.
So, there is evidence that horizontal progression works well in all other multiplayer genres. There is evidence from within the MMORPG genre that horizontal progression can work (all games have some horizontal progression). Lastly, there is the entire history of the world that shows segregation is wrong, yet segregation is exactly what happens when vertical progression is used in multiplayer games.
True, I can't prove that RPGs would work well with entirely horizontal progression, but there is a ton of evidence indicating that it should and no evidence indicating that it wouldn't.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
@cameltosis, imho it's the best psychosociological analysis of vertical progression evolution I've ever read. this thread is....fantastic. faith in humanity restored.
So, my "evidence" is not based on existing games because, as you've pointed out, there doesn't exist an RPG with literally no vertical progression. There are tons with minimal vertical progression, tons with a mix of both, but none with absolutely none.
However, I look to other genres.
Shooters Single player shooters used to all have vertical progression - work through the levels, getting bigger/better guns and armour etc. When shooters went multiplayer, this mechanic didn't work well, so they switched to horizontal progression. This worked exceedingly well and is now considered absolutely vital for all online shooters.
Action RPGs Again, single player action RPGs are all vertical progression. Works fine. When they went multiplayer, it all fell over - players got smashed in pvp or couldn't play together in pve. Again, they went horizontal (mobas) and again, proved the saviour of the genre and is now considered vital for all mobas.
Sports Again, most single player sports games allow you to level up / get new players / cars etc and vertically progress. When it comes to multiplayer, such features failed the genre resulting in low uptake / retention (getting smashed by superior teams / cars sucked) which is why most moved either to horizontal progression or removed all progression online.
In pretty much every single genre out there, vertical progression has proven to be the wrong choice when adapting the genre for multiplayer. Either switching to horizontal progression or removing progression altogether has proven to be the answer.
Only RPGs have failed to make the switch and the results are telling. The parts of MMORPGs which are primarily solo have worked fine with vertical progression, but as soon as you reach the multiplayer parts you run into trouble. The power gaps massively unbalance PvP, making it an extremely niche portion of MMOs. The power gaps also make it really hard to find groups for PvE, resulting in most games becoming 99% solo during leveling. Even at endgame, the power gaps continue to make finding a group hard as they segregate the community, again resulting in group PvE being a niche portion of MMOs.
So, there is evidence that horizontal progression works well in all other multiplayer genres. There is evidence from within the MMORPG genre that horizontal progression can work (all games have some horizontal progression). Lastly, there is the entire history of the world that shows segregation is wrong, yet segregation is exactly what happens when vertical progression is used in multiplayer games.
True, I can't prove that RPGs would work well with entirely horizontal progression, but there is a ton of evidence indicating that it should and no evidence indicating that it wouldn't.
1. First-person Shooters never included progression amongst their core pillars. The genre essentially defines itself: it's a game you're shooting at enemies from first person perspective. (And again, remember that games get assigned a genre based on what genre fits them best -- so when a game is mostly about your player skill at shooting it's a FPS, but if it's like Skyrim or Mass Effect and progression, story, and stats-driven combat have a strong portrayal, then that results in an RPG.)
2. Action RPGs still overwhelmingly use vertical progression. I'm not even sure if you're referring to any actual real game with your claim that action RPGs switched to horizontal progression when they 'went multiplayer', but certainly that doesn't apply to Diablo 1, Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, or Secret of Mana.
3. Sports games: see point #1. Sports games aren't about progression, they're just action games about playing a particular sport.
RPGs are one of the few (possibly the only?) game genres defined by progression. So when the secondary systems of non-RPGs change (and progression is a secondary system for non-RPG genres), then it doesn't change what the game itself is about. The genre is still the genre.
So pointing out the fact that vertical progression is bad for multiplayer games just isn't relevant. Nobody's arguing otherwise. We're only pointing out that this particular genre (RPGs) is defined by vertical progression, and that removing that progression will create a game that isn't considered an RPG. That won't necessarily be bad, because if you want to create PVP you must remove vertical progression. It just means you won't be an RPG.
Being fixated on the idea that some theoretical game must be called an RPG and also must lack vertical progression is where you've gone wrong. A game can only pick one thing: if itmust be an RPG, then it's going to have vertical progression; if it must have good PVP, then it must lack vertical progression (and by extension not by an RPG). And as covered earlier, the reason this causes RPGs to stop being RPGs when it doesn't cause any other genre to stop being that other genre is that progression is actually part of the definition for RPGs whereas it's not for other genres.
A non-RPG with MMORPG-like controls which was just horizontal progression and PVP might be fun, but it wouldn't be considered an RPG if there wasn't any vertical progression.
Also MOBAs split off from the RTS genre, not from Action RPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Per the request of a few people on these boards I've started writing down some of the ideas I have for a game. These ideas are mainly idle fancy for the fun of it and I have no resources to actually build an MMO but I figured they would be pretty relevant to this debate as this game would feature very little vertical progression but would undeniably be an RPG:
RPGs are one of the few (possibly the only?) game genres defined by progression.
You wrote that much bullshit just to accidentally agree with him, and then not even notice that you did so in your crusade to prove your opinion that vertical progression is the one true progression...
Guess we should be glad you're just the hilt and not the blade, least when you trip this bad it's much harder to injure anyone.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So, my "evidence" is not based on existing games because, as you've pointed out, there doesn't exist an RPG with literally no vertical progression. There are tons with minimal vertical progression, tons with a mix of both, but none with absolutely none.
However, I look to other genres.
Shooters Single player shooters used to all have vertical progression - work through the levels, getting bigger/better guns and armour etc. When shooters went multiplayer, this mechanic didn't work well, so they switched to horizontal progression. This worked exceedingly well and is now considered absolutely vital for all online shooters.
Action RPGs Again, single player action RPGs are all vertical progression. Works fine. When they went multiplayer, it all fell over - players got smashed in pvp or couldn't play together in pve. Again, they went horizontal (mobas) and again, proved the saviour of the genre and is now considered vital for all mobas.
Sports Again, most single player sports games allow you to level up / get new players / cars etc and vertically progress. When it comes to multiplayer, such features failed the genre resulting in low uptake / retention (getting smashed by superior teams / cars sucked) which is why most moved either to horizontal progression or removed all progression online.
In pretty much every single genre out there, vertical progression has proven to be the wrong choice when adapting the genre for multiplayer. Either switching to horizontal progression or removing progression altogether has proven to be the answer.
Only RPGs have failed to make the switch and the results are telling. The parts of MMORPGs which are primarily solo have worked fine with vertical progression, but as soon as you reach the multiplayer parts you run into trouble. The power gaps massively unbalance PvP, making it an extremely niche portion of MMOs. The power gaps also make it really hard to find groups for PvE, resulting in most games becoming 99% solo during leveling. Even at endgame, the power gaps continue to make finding a group hard as they segregate the community, again resulting in group PvE being a niche portion of MMOs.
So, there is evidence that horizontal progression works well in all other multiplayer genres. There is evidence from within the MMORPG genre that horizontal progression can work (all games have some horizontal progression). Lastly, there is the entire history of the world that shows segregation is wrong, yet segregation is exactly what happens when vertical progression is used in multiplayer games.
True, I can't prove that RPGs would work well with entirely horizontal progression, but there is a ton of evidence indicating that it should and no evidence indicating that it wouldn't.
That's fantastic. I've argued this stuff for years until I pretty much gave up. I'm very glad that there's people like you to carry on.
What gets me is the loss of game play because we don't have the much more playable and free roaming style that can come with "horizontal progression". One of the biggest negatives always pointed out with the loss of the big power gaps is the spread of players around the game world. They want to spread players out for server load, so they divide players by power gaps and zones. But that removes the possibilities of all the things that would make MMO's much, much better. The answer to server load should be through resource management, in a more natural way. Give players a playable reason to spread out on the servers. And with that comes many things that should be playable, like shipping and caravans for trade instead of basically unlimited loads of commerce moves.
Other playable aspects that could be greatly enhanced with this is exploration, player run villages and cities, construction, storage, and the social organizing that comes with it all.
Add in the expected dungeons, wandering encounters, GM events, and all the things that make Roleplaying Games exciting and you have something players can keep sinking their teeth into.
A game like this, if well done, could attract monthly subscriptions and last a very long time.
So, my "evidence" is not based on existing games because, as you've pointed out, there doesn't exist an RPG with literally no vertical progression. There are tons with minimal vertical progression, tons with a mix of both, but none with absolutely none.
However, I look to other genres.
Shooters Single player shooters used to all have vertical progression - work through the levels, getting bigger/better guns and armour etc. When shooters went multiplayer, this mechanic didn't work well, so they switched to horizontal progression. This worked exceedingly well and is now considered absolutely vital for all online shooters.
Action RPGs Again, single player action RPGs are all vertical progression. Works fine. When they went multiplayer, it all fell over - players got smashed in pvp or couldn't play together in pve. Again, they went horizontal (mobas) and again, proved the saviour of the genre and is now considered vital for all mobas.
Sports Again, most single player sports games allow you to level up / get new players / cars etc and vertically progress. When it comes to multiplayer, such features failed the genre resulting in low uptake / retention (getting smashed by superior teams / cars sucked) which is why most moved either to horizontal progression or removed all progression online.
In pretty much every single genre out there, vertical progression has proven to be the wrong choice when adapting the genre for multiplayer. Either switching to horizontal progression or removing progression altogether has proven to be the answer.
Only RPGs have failed to make the switch and the results are telling. The parts of MMORPGs which are primarily solo have worked fine with vertical progression, but as soon as you reach the multiplayer parts you run into trouble. The power gaps massively unbalance PvP, making it an extremely niche portion of MMOs. The power gaps also make it really hard to find groups for PvE, resulting in most games becoming 99% solo during leveling. Even at endgame, the power gaps continue to make finding a group hard as they segregate the community, again resulting in group PvE being a niche portion of MMOs.
So, there is evidence that horizontal progression works well in all other multiplayer genres. There is evidence from within the MMORPG genre that horizontal progression can work (all games have some horizontal progression). Lastly, there is the entire history of the world that shows segregation is wrong, yet segregation is exactly what happens when vertical progression is used in multiplayer games.
True, I can't prove that RPGs would work well with entirely horizontal progression, but there is a ton of evidence indicating that it should and no evidence indicating that it wouldn't.
That's fantastic. I've argued this stuff for years until I pretty much gave up. I'm very glad that there's people like you to carry on.
What gets me is the loss of game play because we don't have the much more playable and free roaming style that can come with "horizontal progression". One of the biggest negatives always pointed out with the loss of the big power gaps is the spread of players around the game world. They want to spread players out for server load, so they divide players by power gaps and zones. But that removes the possibilities of all the things that would make MMO's much, much better. The answer to server load should be through resource management, in a more natural way. Give players a playable reason to spread out on the servers. And with that comes many things that should be playable, like shipping and caravans for trade instead of basically unlimited loads of commerce moves.
Other playable aspects that could be greatly enhanced with this is exploration, player run villages and cities, construction, storage, and the social organizing that comes with it all.
Add in the expected dungeons, wandering encounters, GM events, and all the things that make Roleplaying Games exciting and you have something players can keep sinking their teeth into.
A game like this, if well done, could attract monthly subscriptions and last a very long time.
If the world's were made in more believable ways you would have spread. You can also make places regional by not having super fast travel and access. Make the gaming world large. Make cities have different advantages and reasons to stay.
That's fantastic. I've argued this stuff for years until I pretty much gave up. I'm very glad that there's people like you to carry on.
...but it's not fantastic, and my post stepped through precisely why. (And even he himself couldn't find a single example of a game proving his point, yet he still clings to his baseless belief.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
The discussion hasn't been that MMO and vertical progression are inseparable but that RPG and vertical progression are (judging by the complete lack of evidence of any RPG that has zero vertical progression, and the overwhelming abundance of RPGs that do have vertical progression).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So again, why are we even discussing this? While the argument that if all RPGs contain vertical progression you can't have an RPG without it is both a non-sequitur and ad populum fallacy (Look them up if you don't know them.) What does it matter if we are talking about MMOs or MMORPGs?
How does the classification a game fits under have anything to do with whether or not it's a viable idea worth pursuing or not? I don't care if it's an MMO, MMORPG, or David Hasslehoff. What you call it has no bearing on whether it's a good concept or not.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So we're discussing this because something wrong was said and corrected and people refused to accept the truth of the matter. I corrected my own post when Venge called me out for wording things poorly; the person making this false claim could've simply done the same.
Obviously games could exist with no vertical progression, and being an MMO doesn't affect that at all, and in fact for PVP games it's ideal to have no vertical progression so the playing field is equal and skill-focused, whereas in PVE there's no significant reason not to have it (because the advantage to having it outweighs the minor (and individually-solvable) disadvantage to having it). If you don't have it, then you're definitely not going to create a game that's considered an RPG but you're right that nobody should necessarily be concerned about that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
These people are truly roleplaying in a MMORPG , the confusion for many in this genre is they dont know or distinguish the difference between , Role Playing or playing a Role .. 2 very different things ...
They're two different, distinct genres with different core design pillars.
Also the game itself determines the genre, not any mods. Only a fool would call Starcraft 2 a puzzle game just because there's a puzzle custom map. Instead, SC2 is an RTS (and the puzzle map is its own game called Starjeweled, and Starjeweled is a puzzle game.) Similarly, Second Life is just a sandbox. Second Life itself has no inherent gameplay (afaik) and is merely a platform where games and non-games can exist. Those games can be their own genres, but those games aren't Second Life.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's all fundamentally that he believes that RPGs can't exist without progression taking a distinct vertical format. When presented with a statement that suggests one can make an RPG predicated on horizontal progression, it's basically counter to this belief of his and therefore it is "wrong", in spite of it being an entirely subjective opinion on his part.
Nothing "wrong" was actually said as such, but because he disagrees with it he has hence deemed it wrong and nothing can change that in spite of the evidence he demands to his strange quandary existing in the wiki pages he linked.
So in short, his ego can't accept that his beliefs are not the universal truth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
You may have started including vertical progression as a pillar of computer game RPGs, but that doesn't make you right. Its a common feature, but then its a common feature of many genres. RPGs are about role-playing through a story / gameworld. Customisation is a big part of it, but then many games are considered RPGs even when you can't customise your role.
Regardless, horizontal progression is still progression - your character starts off in one place and progresses to a new place in terms of power / specialisation - so a game can easily still be an RPG with horizontal progression. My inability to find an example of an RPG without any vertical progression is not evidence that such an RPG is impossible and to argue otherwise is arguing from a point of ignorance (a common false dichotomy, usually employed by people of faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
But, even though I cannot find any examples of RPGs with any vertical progression, pretty much all RPGs I've ever played have a combination of both horizontal and vertical progression. So, the mechanic itself has already proven itself a stable of RPGs and proven itself popular. Perhaps I should challenge you to find an RPG with no horizontal progression?
A lack of evidence makes a claim baseless. That doesn't mean the claim is false, but it means it's not based on any evidence so it's quite likely to be false unless there's is a strong logical reason it might be true or strong related evidence indicating it might be true. Neither of those exist for your claim.
Why challenge me to find an RPG with no horizontal progression? I haven't made any false claims regarding that. Note how my lack of baseless claims means I have nothing to prove to you? You could learn something from that...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
However, I look to other genres.
Shooters
Single player shooters used to all have vertical progression - work through the levels, getting bigger/better guns and armour etc. When shooters went multiplayer, this mechanic didn't work well, so they switched to horizontal progression. This worked exceedingly well and is now considered absolutely vital for all online shooters.
Action RPGs
Again, single player action RPGs are all vertical progression. Works fine. When they went multiplayer, it all fell over - players got smashed in pvp or couldn't play together in pve. Again, they went horizontal (mobas) and again, proved the saviour of the genre and is now considered vital for all mobas.
Sports
Again, most single player sports games allow you to level up / get new players / cars etc and vertically progress. When it comes to multiplayer, such features failed the genre resulting in low uptake / retention (getting smashed by superior teams / cars sucked) which is why most moved either to horizontal progression or removed all progression online.
In pretty much every single genre out there, vertical progression has proven to be the wrong choice when adapting the genre for multiplayer. Either switching to horizontal progression or removing progression altogether has proven to be the answer.
Only RPGs have failed to make the switch and the results are telling. The parts of MMORPGs which are primarily solo have worked fine with vertical progression, but as soon as you reach the multiplayer parts you run into trouble. The power gaps massively unbalance PvP, making it an extremely niche portion of MMOs. The power gaps also make it really hard to find groups for PvE, resulting in most games becoming 99% solo during leveling. Even at endgame, the power gaps continue to make finding a group hard as they segregate the community, again resulting in group PvE being a niche portion of MMOs.
So, there is evidence that horizontal progression works well in all other multiplayer genres. There is evidence from within the MMORPG genre that horizontal progression can work (all games have some horizontal progression). Lastly, there is the entire history of the world that shows segregation is wrong, yet segregation is exactly what happens when vertical progression is used in multiplayer games.
True, I can't prove that RPGs would work well with entirely horizontal progression, but there is a ton of evidence indicating that it should and no evidence indicating that it wouldn't.
this thread is....fantastic.
faith in humanity restored.
just wanted to express my admiration
2. Action RPGs still overwhelmingly use vertical progression. I'm not even sure if you're referring to any actual real game with your claim that action RPGs switched to horizontal progression when they 'went multiplayer', but certainly that doesn't apply to Diablo 1, Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, or Secret of Mana.
3. Sports games: see point #1. Sports games aren't about progression, they're just action games about playing a particular sport.
RPGs are one of the few (possibly the only?) game genres defined by progression. So when the secondary systems of non-RPGs change (and progression is a secondary system for non-RPG genres), then it doesn't change what the game itself is about. The genre is still the genre.
So pointing out the fact that vertical progression is bad for multiplayer games just isn't relevant. Nobody's arguing otherwise. We're only pointing out that this particular genre (RPGs) is defined by vertical progression, and that removing that progression will create a game that isn't considered an RPG. That won't necessarily be bad, because if you want to create PVP you must remove vertical progression. It just means you won't be an RPG.
Being fixated on the idea that some theoretical game must be called an RPG and also must lack vertical progression is where you've gone wrong. A game can only pick one thing: if it must be an RPG, then it's going to have vertical progression; if it must have good PVP, then it must lack vertical progression (and by extension not by an RPG). And as covered earlier, the reason this causes RPGs to stop being RPGs when it doesn't cause any other genre to stop being that other genre is that progression is actually part of the definition for RPGs whereas it's not for other genres.
A non-RPG with MMORPG-like controls which was just horizontal progression and PVP might be fun, but it wouldn't be considered an RPG if there wasn't any vertical progression.
Also MOBAs split off from the RTS genre, not from Action RPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Guess we should be glad you're just the hilt and not the blade, least when you trip this bad it's much harder to injure anyone.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I've argued this stuff for years until I pretty much gave up. I'm very glad that there's people like you to carry on.
What gets me is the loss of game play because we don't have the much more playable and free roaming style that can come with "horizontal progression".
One of the biggest negatives always pointed out with the loss of the big power gaps is the spread of players around the game world. They want to spread players out for server load, so they divide players by power gaps and zones.
But that removes the possibilities of all the things that would make MMO's much, much better.
The answer to server load should be through resource management, in a more natural way. Give players a playable reason to spread out on the servers.
And with that comes many things that should be playable, like shipping and caravans for trade instead of basically unlimited loads of commerce moves.
Other playable aspects that could be greatly enhanced with this is exploration, player run villages and cities, construction, storage, and the social organizing that comes with it all.
Add in the expected dungeons, wandering encounters, GM events, and all the things that make Roleplaying Games exciting and you have something players can keep sinking their teeth into.
A game like this, if well done, could attract monthly subscriptions and last a very long time.
Once upon a time....
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver